On Jul 3, 2013, at 1:24 PM, Jordan Hayes wrote:
> Shane Mage writes:
>
>> If Clapper's lie wasn't a lie, what could possibly be one?
>
> Did you read his explaination? It sounds reasonable to me,
> especially since his aides realized the problem right away and
> talked to Wyden's folks after the meeting. He misunderstood the
> question. That makes him not-so-great at his job, not a felon.
Senator Ron Wyden asked Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, "Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?"
To which Clapper responded, "No, sir ... Not wittingly."
How can anybody, anybody speaking English, that is, misunderstand the words "any type of data AT ALL?" What kind of defense is it that his aides talked to aides of a Senator? The lie was public--it represented what Obama wanted the public to [NOT] know about his spying program against you and me, specifically its unlimited scope. That the NSA spies became an open secret once that outfit's existence had become public knowledge--but only thanks to Snowden, Greenwald, and Wiki Leaks do we now have positive, verified, knowledge that the targets of its spying included every electronically-connected person in the whole world. Without the Snowden revelations, Clapper's lie would have the status of official, unchallenged, truth.
>
>> ... even more monstrous is the assertion that his lie was "well
>> within the rules." It ain't the "rules." It's the law.
>> Perjury is a major felony.
>
> Um, so is willful disclosure of classified information.
>
The felony is in what has been classified, not its disclosure.
Where does the Constitution empower government bureaucrats and secret
policemen to decide what information is excluded from tyhe guarantee
of freedom of speech?
And when has a leak of politically-useful classified information to
pseudo-journalists shilling for an administration, the sort of thing
that happens almost daily, been viewed by those bureaucrats and secret
policemen as anything but a meritorious service?
>
> The real question is: what is Wyden doing asking a question in
> public that he knows has a classified answer?
Putting a criminal on the spot in the best way open to him. Clapper could have requested that the committee go into executive session. Which would have alerted the public that he had something to hide. So he lied, in the secure knowledge that his lie was empowered at the highest level and the secure ignorance that a Snowden even existed!
>
Shane Mage
"scientific discovery is basically recognition of obvious realities that self-interest or ideology have kept everybody from paying attention to"